Two interesting e-mails in response to today's column.

The only thing you left out about why mileage didn’t go up is that Congress was too timid to push it along until it became a crisis again. Over the last 25 years we could have raised the bar a little every year or two and had very little affect on what cars we buy, not to mention push technology ahead. I am against the slash and burn approach that California and now the Feds are using, which is likely to fall short and cost billions in wasted money. Too bad America never reacts until it becomes a crisis. See you soon.

-- John Davis, MPT's MotorWeek

Thank you for your column "Mileage Mediiocrity." It's all too true. There are some points you may be interested in.

1. One reason the  EPA mileage figures are not as good as years ago is that years ago the EPA was basing their figures on tests conducted in garages equipped with rollers built in to the floor.( Like the emissions tests.) The cars would sit on these rollers while the wheels were spinning, and the mileage was noted. Not very real world driving. They now have wised up and conduct tests out in the city and on the highway, which show at least 20% poorer mileage than the tests on the rollers. Much more accurate.

2. Back in the 70's, bills were introduced to Congress calling for across-the board improvements in mileage for all cars. This was watered down by the car  and oil companies' friends in Congress to require only the "average" score across all models of a given company to gradually improve the mileage. This meant that they could sell 8 mpg  trucks and SUV's as long as they had other models for sale at 30 mpg. Guess which models sold at a bigger volume. The same loophole will continue with all new legislation.

3. The new  cash for clunkers bill will actually allow you to trade in your old gas guzzler for a new one that gets  only one mpg better!.

4. Even though it should be obvious that we cannot conduct foreign policy
   while in thrall to hostile producers overseas (this is why we will not stop Iran from building the Bomb--we need their oil), nothing short of an economic depression seems to halt the rapid rise in oil imports.

5. World War One was fought over raw materials being extracted from the new colonies being developed. World War Two was fought over a. The German's drive for the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus and b. The Japanese drive for the oils fields in the Indies.

A lot of grief over oil.

-- Stan Gelber

Left to their own devices, automakers (like other rationally managed businesses) will not engage in "steady research and progressive development" unless and until it is in their economic interest to do so, and the Federal government will not modify consumers' behavior simply by demanding that automakers build cars that consumers currently do not want to buy. 

If the Federal government truly wants to modify consumers' behavior, Congress should guarantee that, effective July 1, 2010, the price of gasoline will not be less than $4 per gallon by enacting a Federal gasoline tax that rises or falls in inverse proportion to the price of gasoline.  Such legislation might even make the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation successful because consumers would be more likely to purchase vehicles that exceed the 22 mpg standard and "Clunkers" would be less likely to be recycled in the used car market.

If and only if consumers clamor for more fuel efficient cars and trucks, will automakers devote the time, money and resources to design and build more fuel efficient cars and trucks.

-- Bob Price